State v. PhillipsState v. Phillips
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Contreras, Froeb, Ogg
CONTRERAS, Presiding Judge.
Appellant was indicted on January 11, 1982 for trafficking in stolen property, a class 3 felony. The State filed an allegation of prior convictions, on May 17, 1982. Appellant entered into a plea agreement on August 18, 1982, wherein he pled guilty to the original charge with one prior conviction alleged. The prior conviction admitted by appellant was a federal conviction from the District Court of Arizona, CR-74-40 Phx., dated March 11, 1974. The plea agreement set forth a stipulated sentence of seven and one-half years, the presumptive sentence for a class 3 felony with a prior conviction alleged.
On appeal, appellant argues that his sentence was illegal in that the prior conviction used to enhance his sentence should not have been considered, under
A person who has been convicted in any court outside the jurisdiction of this state of an offense which if committed within this state would be punishable as a felony or misdemeanor is subject to the provisions of this section.
The prior conviction, which appellant admitted at the plea proceeding, was a federal offense, a violation of
IT IS ADJUDGED that the defendant has been convicted upon his plea of Guilty of the offense of violating Title
18, Section 2312, United States Code (Sell and Dispose of stolen motor vehicle), as charged in count 1 of the Indictment.
Appellant argues that under
Both parties to this appeal recognize that a guilty plea generally waives nonjurisdictional objections. State v. Flewellen, 127 Ariz. 342, 621 P.2d 29 (1980). However, it is clear that where the objection is to the validity of the sentence imposed, such an objection is not waived by a guilty plea. See, e.g., State v. Canada, 107 Ariz. 66, 481 P.2d 859 (1971); cert. denied, 404 U.S. 848, 92 S.Ct. 154, 30 L.Ed.2d 87 (1971); State v. Armendariz, 127 Ariz. 422, 621 P.2d 928 (App. 1980). When the prior conviction used to enhance a sentence under
Turning to the merits of appellant‘s argument, we conclude that the prior conviction could be considered by the court under
It is apparent that under the above statutes the jurisdiction in which the prior offense was committed is immaterial, since the elements of the prior offense are relevant in determining that defendant is a recidivist.
107 Ariz. at 67, 481 P.2d at 860.
A similar argument was also raised in State v. Wait, 9 Wash. App. 136, 509 P.2d 372 (1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 930, 94 S.Ct. 1440, 39 L.Ed.2d 488 (1974). In that case, the defendant argued that this prior conviction under
We believe these latter authorities state a general rule, properly applicable to the case at bar, that a previous conviction under a federal statute may be used for purposes of a state habitual criminal act so long as elements sufficient to amount to a state felony were included within the federal offense and thereby necessarily were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
9 Wash. App. at 142, 509 P.2d at 375.
Applying that test, the court noted that the four essential elements of the offense prohibited by
(1) that the motor vehicle had been stolen;
(2) that the motor vehicle was transported in interstate commerce;
(3) that the defendant knew the motor vehicle had been stolen; and
(4) that the defendant transported the motor vehicle with dishonest intent.
9 Wash. App. at 143, 509 P.2d at 376.
By comparing the elements of the federal and state crimes, the court concluded
We believe that the Code‘s emphasis on “conduct” in defining “offense” is consistent with the court‘s emphasis in Canada, i.e., that it is the elements of the prior offense which are relevant in determining whether the enhanced punishment provisions apply.
A conviction under
In conclusion, we find that the allegation of the prior conviction under
Judgment and sentence affirmed.
FROEB and OGG, J